[overspeed]

People draw an arbitrary line of difference in the way we treat AI programs and human outputs.

A human imagining orcs and one horned horses has 'fantastical, larger than life' imagination but AI generation drawing people with strange hands is 'incorrect'.

These are not one to one examples but the point stands that with enough suspension of belief, people are more likely to take on human creations at face value than AI when they know the source.

[beepbooptheory]

Sure I think I agree. My point is just you can imagine the post-apocalyptic artist with a human brain painting the beach or just painting the dark landscapes; but we can only imagine the GPT brain painting the dark landscapes, in so far as that is majority of its day to day dataset, thus the statistically likely output.

This suggests a qualitative difference between the two when it comes to "creating" or "generating" that feels far from trivial, even if you want to say the AI can make "good" things, whatever that means to you.